Author: Micheal Cummings
Date: 23:17:51 02/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 1999 at 23:07:25, Dann Corbit wrote: >On February 13, 1999 at 23:02:11, Micheal Cummings wrote: >[snip] >>I just read your post Dann and I am wondering from what was written what you are >>actually trying to say in response to his post, I think you are a bit off the >>road. Maybe like I said I have missed something ,but what is wrong with what he >>is doing. >> >>Just because he stated that he is proving it, just means from the games he has >>played so far that he is actually proving his bet right. >You may well be right and I may have misinterpreted what he was trying to say. >It seemed (from my reading) that he had already assumed the outcome. For that >matter, I have no problem with someone favoring a particular program. I am sure >that we all do that in some sense. But I don't think if you lack scientific >objectivity during an experiment, then the outcome is less certain than if the >experimenters are completely objective. Sometimes, in a written media, we can >read way too much in between the lines. I may be guilty of that here. > >If I see a scientist say, "I am going to prove that Saccharin causes cancer." I >already doubt the value of his work to a much greater degree than if he said, "I >am going to try to find out if there is a link between Saccharin and cancer." > >If you are not objective, then the outcome is far less believable (to me). Either way I do not think there is any tainting of games or data. But saying that I would like to see the games he is playing. Then that might help in seeing what kind of games they are.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.